Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Huw Irranca-Davies

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point: it is not possible to eradicate this disease without tackling the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. She rightly says that the previous Government put their head in the sand and did nothing. This is a slow-moving, difficult disease and it has to be hit hard and early, which the previous Government failed to do. At a recent NFU conference Labour confirmed again that, irrespective of the evidence and the advice of the chief veterinary officer, it would abandon the culls.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Despite the Government’s protestations, the previous Labour Government killed more badgers than any other Government. [Laughter.] Yes. The £50 million trial over 10 years concluded that such action gave no meaningful contribution to the eradication of tuberculosis. The Government’s badger culls have not just been a disaster for wildlife, but come at a huge financial cost. In the first year of the culls, the Government spent £9.8 million. With Ministers proposing to extend the badger culls, possibly to 10 areas and after that to 40 areas, how much more can taxpayers expect to fork out for these ineffective and inhumane badger culls?

[George Eustice]

The random badger cull trials that were carried out demonstrated incontrovertibly that, over time, the cull did lead to a significant reduction in the disease, which is why the experts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recommend a cull as part of the strategy. It is absolutely wrong for Labour to say that it will ignore the evidence and the advice of the chief veterinary officer. On the costs in the first year, the cull clearly had elements of analysis, post mortem, research and policing that will not be present when we roll it out more widely. We are committed to having a badger cull as part of our 25-year strategy.

Animal Welfare (Non-stun Slaughter)

Debate between George Eustice and Huw Irranca-Davies

Monday 23rd February 2015 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

I know that the hon. Lady made that point previously. I do not think that there has been anything in the debate today to suggest that that is the case among hon. Members taking part in it, and indeed the motion itself makes it absolutely clear that it is looking just at the animal welfare issue, so I am not sure that we should go down that route.

In conclusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) pointed out, the Government have no plans at all to ban religious slaughter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that there is no intention to ban religious slaughter. However, everyone agrees that we need good enforcement of our existing legislation.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Does the Minister see any scope for progress on post-cut stunning, which would be a real step forward? Several hon. Members raised that.

[George Eustice]

Yes, and I am going to come to that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned enforcement and I can confirm that today, following a number of incidents, the FSA has begun a series of unannounced inspections of GB slaughterhouses, and by the end of March all approved slaughterhouses will have been subject to an unannounced inspection.

On the shadow Minister’s point, in the longer term, we may be able to learn lessons from other countries. Some other countries have managed to accommodate or reconcile the beliefs of Jewish and Muslim communities while having a slightly different approach from us. A number of countries, including Holland and France, do have a requirement for a post-cut stun in a particular time scale. It is not easy to get consensus among the religious communities for that, but we should also recognise, as I said at the beginning, that in many respects our national rules are better than those elsewhere in Europe, especially on the issue of inversion, which is, according to all advice, quite serious.

We have had a very good, informative debate, covering a wide range of issues. It has been a pleasure to be here to debate this issue again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Huw Irranca-Davies

Thursday 29th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I visited the food bank in Camborne in my constituency just before Christmas to support the work that it does. It is better for food banks to have predominantly non-perishable goods to support the great work that they do.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

There is no shortage of food in this country, yet more than 1 million people are going hungry and relying on emergency food aid. There is no shortage of compassion from food bank volunteers, but there is a hunger of compassion in a Government who are taking us back to the 1930s in spending and to Victorian times in attitudes to the poor. The Secretary of State sat out the last debate on food banks. Will the Minister apologise for the Government’s staggering complacency in the face of a food crisis in which an advanced nation cannot feed its working poor and its vulnerable, or will he join again the collective chorus of denial in the dying days of this Government?

[George Eustice]

The Government have got 1.7 million people back into work and taken 3 million of the lowest-paid out of tax altogether. If the Labour party had had its way, it would have frozen energy prices at the top of the market, but we have seen energy prices continue to fall. Food prices have fallen for the first time since 2002 and are continuing to do so.

Food Security

Debate between George Eustice and Huw Irranca-Davies

Thursday 27th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

I understand that. I think that we do have that co-ordination, but I lead on food security. We also need co-ordination on science, because science will have many of the answers to the challenges we face.

Several hon. Members mentioned the Global Food Security programme, which was set up to co-ordinate food-related research. It is led by Tim Benton, whom the shadow Minister mentioned, and deals with joining up research in a number of areas, looking at how to improve resilience and the sustainable production and supply of food. It also considers nutrition, health and well-being. That programme is co-ordinating and joining up much of the specific, tailored research in this area. DEFRA is also looking more generally at whether we can co-ordinate more effectively all the various research bodies to reduce duplication and increase focus on research and its effectiveness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned the importance of waste, an issue that the second part of the Committee’s food security report considers. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), is present for the next debate and waste is generally an issue that he covers, but it is important to recognise that, through the Courtauld commitment and the work of organisations such as the Waste and Resources Action Programme, we have already made good progress on reducing food waste. Household waste is down by some 15%, and we have reduced waste in the supply chain by some 8% and aim to reduce that further.

I want to touch on the importance of technology. Together with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, we have an agri-tech strategy and a £160 million fund, £90 million of which is a catalyst fund to support projects in order to accelerate the transfer of knowledge into farms. Another part of the fund is designed to create centres of excellence in science and food technology.

On long-range weather forecasts, I chair a farm resilience group that meets every six months and will be meeting again in the new year. The Met Office is represented in the group, and we regularly discuss how to improve weather forecasting for farmers. DEFRA has also funded a project to examine our flood resilience on the east coast, and, in addition to some other international collaboration, we are doing some work with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the US Government to understand the impact that extreme weather can have on global security. We are conscious of the weather’s impact and want to improve our forecasting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and others mentioned the soft fruit industry’s success in extending its season. Our production-to-supply ratio for strawberries has increased from some 60% to 70% just in the past decade or so. I was in the soft fruit industry myself some 20 years ago, and some of these things are not as new as some people say. In Cornwall 20 years ago, I was producing strawberries in heated glasshouses from the end of March right through until Christmas. We used to pride ourselves on having strawberries from Easter to Christmas. The advent of Spanish and French-style polytunnels has given more protection to such crops and has enabled a more widespread extension of the season. My hon. Friend also mentioned apricots, which are indeed now grown in the UK under temporary polythene structures.

I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of reforming the common agricultural policy. The Government argued against the greening measures in pillar one and were clear that it should be kept as simple as possible, and that the best way to deliver for the environment was through our highly successful agri-environment schemes and pillar two. I can confirm that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has written to new Commissioner Hogan, with whom I spoke last week. The European Commission is certainly open to the idea of reconsidering some of the greening requirements, and possibly even reconsidering in the mid-term review the idea of the three-crop rule or how it is applied. We have worked with our allies in the Stockholm group of countries, which argue for reform of the CAP and the European Union, to reach a common position to argue for the simplification of the CAP. We hope to make some progress on that next year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned soya beans, and I have already touched on the fact that the pig industry has been particularly successful in reducing the amount of soya bean that it uses. The other thing to note is that one possible impact of the greening of pillar one—of which, I repeat, we were critical—is that in order to reach the three-crop rule some arable farmers may grow leguminous crops such as broad beans to count towards both their third crop and their ecological focus areas. Potentially, we could see an increase in the production of broad beans and other leguminous crops, which might then displace soya imports.

My hon. Friend also mentioned soil protection. Under our cross-compliance regime, we will scrap the need for a soil protection review, which is only a paper-based exercise that people go through and tick boxes. It does not mean much and is simply an administrative task, and we are replacing it with something much more meaningful. Where we know about soil management challenges on farms or inappropriate management of the soil having an impact on water courses, for example, we want to put in place meaningful measures to deal with that. We are completely overhauling cross-compliance in that area.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Minister is giving a comprehensive report,. Will he give us more idea of what “meaningful measures” might be? It is only one point in his overall plans, but this different approach is interesting—to say, “We are not doing a tick-box scheme, but we will target instead.” What might such measures be? Does he have any early indications?

[George Eustice]

Yes. We will shortly be publishing the detailed guidance on the cross-compliance, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to look at it then. In essence, it means farmers ensuring that they have vegetative cover on fields for the maximum possible amount of time; that they only plough when they need to, just ahead of sowing; or that, for example, if they have a problem with water running off their fields, they might consider ploughing them in a different way so that the water does not tunnel down the furrowed ploughed land. We can do a number of different things, and that is the kind of sensible measure that we will have in cross-compliance, rather than having a simple paper-based exercise.

On the groceries code adjudicator, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned third-party complaints. I was on the Bill Committee that scrutinised the introduction of that adjudicator. Third parties may complain on behalf of other people, but she made a moot point about whether the adjudicator should be able to instigate investigations itself, without a complaint. In a year or two, a review by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which is the sponsoring Department, might consider that, but at the moment it is too early to make such a judgment.

My hon. Friend also mentioned new entrants. I confirm that we are working on a plan to support new entrants into the industry through the rural development programme. It is a delight to be in the Chamber today, but were it not for this debate, I would have been speaking at the Farmers Weekly “Fertile Minds” conference in Cumbria, which is all about trying to engage new people into the industry. That is something that we are looking at, and I am working on a project about encouraging the use, for instance, of share farm or contract farm agreements to create alternative routes for new people into the industry.

We are already delivering on our commitment to increase exports. Through UK Trade & Investment, we have already helped 2,500 food and drink companies and, so far this year, we have opened more than 100 new international markets to animals and animal products. That includes countries such as the Cayman Islands, the Dominican Republic, Mongolia and, for dairy products, Cuba. We are leaving no stone unturned when it comes to opening new markets.

A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), mentioned the previous Government’s “Food 2030”. People can, however, get too hung up on particular reports. I have read the report and, where it talks about the importance of agricultural technology, I would argue that we have taken things forward in our agri-tech strategy and other things. The report mentions the importance of sustainable intensification—we have had our own green food project with various route maps. It talks about new entrants—I have just explained what we hope to do on that. There is a consistency of themes between what we are doing and what was identified in the report as a challenge.

In addition, we have asked the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and its new chair, Peter Kendall, to put in place a plan for British agriculture and for how we can make it more competitive. That is a priority for that levy organisation.

[George Eustice]

There we go, we have an outbreak of consensus. As I said, we are taking forward many of the points.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the existing precarious condition of the dairy industry, which has seen sharp falls in prices. I will have the pleasure of appearing before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee next week to discuss such issues in more detail. For now, I point out that last week we had a meeting of the dairy supply chain forum, which I chair. We looked at the issue of price volatility and at whether the industry can do more, or whether we can support it, to develop financial instruments that might help them to manage volatility in future. We have also had a review by Alex Fergusson MSP of how the dairy supply chain code is working.

On GM foods, which a number of hon. Members mentioned, our position is consistent. We believe in a science-based approach; if we get the regulation right, there could be a role for such crops. That remains our position. We have always sought allies to argue that case in the European Union.

The hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) talked about food security and, in the context of food banks, people’s ability to afford food. I will not stray into areas that are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions, which might be outside the scope of the debate, but I want to say that although there was a big spike in food prices in 2008, in the past year we have seen food prices fall for the first time since 2002. I chair AMIS, the Agricultural Market Information System, which monitors agricultural commodity markets, and most of the projections at the moment are that for the next couple of years there will be relative stability in cereal prices.

The hon. Member for Ogmore mentioned animal feeds. I want to touch on that, because animal feed costs are lower. Although prices are in some cases just as low for dairy farmers as they were two years ago, the fact that animal feed prices are lower means that farmers’ financial viability is not as compromised as it might have been. He also talked about local food networks, and we are keen to encourage and promote local food production. That is why we asked Peter Bonfield to put in place our new Government plan for procurement, which is all about encouraging the public sector locally—schools and hospitals—to buy and source its food locally, from local suppliers.

The hon. Member for Ogmore also mentioned the role of health. Public Health England regularly runs campaigns to encourage healthy eating, in particular the “eatwell plate”, through which people are encouraged to have their five a day, to moderate their meat consumption and so on.

The final thing that I wanted to mention was the point about meat production made by the hon. Gentleman. We are not going to lecture people on what they should or should not eat, but one of the things that emerged from an informal session that we had at the European Council recently was what might happen if we want to reduce our carbon footprint in meat production, which is perhaps a bit of a trend towards less intensive systems, predominantly using grassland production, the environmental impact of which is lower. The lamb and beef systems of production in this country have less impact on the environment than those of many other countries.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My intention is to come back only on that point, because a lot of good stuff is going on and there is a lot of continuity, which is great and which people want to see. The Minister mentioned procurement and diet, health and well-being, but with so many such areas involved, does he sit down with other Ministers and talk about the effect of X, Y and Z on the food industry, jobs, average earnings, food banks or the response to food aid, telling them what he would like them all to do?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman has been in government, and he knows that Ministers have regular meetings with other Ministers on a range of issues. I regularly meet the Health Minister with responsibility for those matters to discuss issues such as nutrition.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

rose—

[George Eustice]

I will give the hon. Gentleman one more go.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I am trying to enhance the Minister’s position. I would like him to sit down in a cross-departmental way and say, “Health, you are doing great things. BIS, you are doing great things. All of you are doing great things, but it is within a context. We will deal with things, such as access to food within the UK, and we will do it in this manner, coherently.” I want him to do that. Will he do it?

[George Eustice]

As we said in our response to the report, DEFRA leads on food security. Ministers have many meetings with ministerial colleagues, and we have many cross-Government committees, some of which are chaired by Ian Boyd, DEFRA’s chief scientist, and some of which are chaired by officials. This is an important debate on a wide-ranging report that makes an important contribution to the debate on food security. Again, I congratulate the members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on their work.

Food Fraud

Debate between George Eustice and Huw Irranca-Davies

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I could not agree more. I hope that the Minister will also say that that is the way forward. It is not only about routine checks or risk assessment-based checks but turning up unannounced.

The hon. Lady rightly made a point about Troop and the FSA leadership, and clarity of roles. She also talked about the police’s powers of arrest, and I will be interested in the Minister’s response to that.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), a former Minister in the Department who also has great experience, discussed the importance of cultural change, which is crucial. He rightly talked about the importance of driving this through every area, including catering. It has to go deep into every individual sector and employee as well as the bosses and the leadership. The importance of caterers was brought home in the horsemeat scandal, because horsemeat was appearing not only in hospitals and schools but in the food used by caterers who were supplying Royal Ascot and the royal family—so at least we were all in it together.

On the complexity of the supply chain, Elliott says that we have to recognise that, even though it is more desirable to have shorter supply chains and to encourage food retailers and providers to move towards them, we are in a global system, under which global intelligence and the pursuit of crime come into play. He also says, wisely, that ultimately the food price wars that take place from time to time, including now, are not good for the consumer if they jeopardise food authenticity or—heaven help us—food safety.

The hon. Member for York Outer spoke up strongly for British farming and food produce. He talked about the gold standard of British farming and I agree with him. Curiously, when we were on the Government Benches, others would shout at us about gold-plating, but that is exactly the gold standard he was talking about. That is the reason our exports to many other countries are doing well—they demand the standards of animal welfare, hygiene and testing that this country delivers. Regulation is a darn good thing when it protects the consumer and allows us to export around the world. Curiously, the FSA has traditionally been looked on as the gold standard of food regulation.

The hon. Gentleman also talked wisely about the importance of knowing where our food actually comes from. There is a great deal of work to do on that right across the population, ourselves included. There is real value in knowing where food comes from; it ties into so many good things.

The Labour party is very clear—as we were when we were in government—that the consumer has always to be put first. That is why, when in government, we established a strong and independent Food Standards Agency, which had a powerful reach right across Government to regulate this vital industry that creates so many jobs and that wants the very highest standards. However, the changes brought about by tinkering with the machinery of government have jeopardised that.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Professor Elliott says in his report that when the FSA had control of authenticity testing in 2007-08, under the previous Government, it took the decision, as an independent body, to cut spending on the testing programme. If the hon. Gentleman had been a Minister at the time and had received a submission recommending such a cut, would he have agreed with it or might he have questioned it?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I was not the Minister at the time, but I would like the hon. Gentleman to continue to make his point, because Professor Chris Elliott was unable to address the detail. Will he confirm whether authenticity testing continued even though it had been reduced?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Yes, it continued, but the point Elliott makes is that the FSA, as an independent body, took the decision to start winding down authenticity testing.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Let me put it back to the hon. Gentleman: when the coalition Government entered office in 2010, one of their first decisions in DEFRA was to split away authenticity testing. At that point, did they think it was appropriate to increase investment in it? We could go back and forth on this issue, but authenticity testing was still happening at that time, even if it had been reduced. I am interested in the detail, but it was continuing.

Genetically Modified Organisms: Labelling

Debate between George Eustice and Huw Irranca-Davies

Monday 1st September 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's position is in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations on labelling of products containing GM in the UK food chain; and if she will make a statement.

[Official Report, 22 July 2014, Vol. 584, c. 1063W.]

Letter of correction from George Eustice:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on 22 July 2014.

The full answer given was as follows:

[George Eustice]

This issue has yet to be discussed in detail within the framework of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations. The Government will consider its negotiation position based on a range of factors including the environmental impact and public health benefit of such anti-microbial treatments that can reduce potential for foodborne illness.

The correct answer should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Huw Irranca-Davies

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend highlights an important point, which is that this issue around food banks touches on many different Government Departments. It is why, at the debate before Christmas, my hon. Friend in the Cabinet Office responded to that report. My right hon. Friend is right that a number of Government Departments have a role in this matter, but, focusing on the bit that is relevant to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it is important to recognise that food price inflation is now falling. It was 1.9% in December, and that was below the average level of inflation, and food is now 4.8% cheaper in the UK than in France, 14% cheaper than in Germany and 18% cheaper than in Ireland. On food prices, the UK is in a better position than most other European countries.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

That is extraordinary complacency. In December, a group of doctors and leading academics from the Medical Research Council wrote to the British Medical Journal with concerns over the surge in the numbers of people requiring emergency food aid, the decrease in the calorific intake of families and the doubling of malnutrition cases presenting at English hospitals. The Government are presiding over a national scandal in public health as well as a failure of social economic policy. When will the Minister publish that delayed report on food aid? Publish and be damned!

[George Eustice]

Let us look at the facts on food price affordability. In 2008, the poorest 20% of households were spending 16.8% of household income on food. In 2012, they were spending 16.6%, so the truth is that the poorest households are spending roughly the same amount of their household income now as they were under the previous Government. The Government have a number of projects to help them. Through the healthy start scheme, the Government are providing a nutritional safety net in a way that encourages healthy eating, which has helped more than half a million pregnant women and children under four years old who are disadvantaged and come from households on very low incomes. We also have a number of other projects under way.

Fly-Grazing of Horses

Debate between George Eustice and Huw Irranca-Davies

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

I will address that point in a moment. I just want to make this point about new powers in the pipeline. Clearly, the act of leaving a horse or horses on another person’s land is an example of antisocial behaviour. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill is currently before Parliament and, when enacted, will provide enforcers with new and much more flexible powers to tackle antisocial behaviour in all its forms, including the act of leaving a horse on someone else’s land. Indeed, there have already been some instances in which the existing antisocial behaviour orders—ASBOs—have been served on perpetrators of fly-grazing.

The new antisocial behaviour measures will make it even easier for enforcers to use such powers to tackle these problems. For example, if a person is identified as having left their horse on someone else’s land without permission, the local authority or police could issue a community protection notice requiring the individual to do anything reasonable to address the antisocial behaviour.

In the case of fly-grazed horses, the notice might require the individual to remove or even to sell the horses. Failure to abide by a community protection notice is a criminal offence, and anyone who does so may face a fine or other sanctions. The provisions give the authorities power to impose a forfeiture order on any item, including an animal, used to breach a community protection notice; in this case, that would be a horse.

Several hon. Members have alluded to the frustration of those who complain to the authorities about such problems but no action appears to be taken. If a complainant is dissatisfied with a local authority, either because it has not responded to their concern or because they consider that it has not dealt with the concern effectively, it may be possible to use the new community trigger. Under the community trigger, the police, local authorities and other organisations can be required to review their response if a resident or group of residents have complained about the same problem three or more times and are not satisfied with the response.

In applying all those antisocial behaviour measures, it is necessary to know who the culprits are. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that we can tackle the problem without identifying and tackling irresponsible owners. If authorities can pool their intelligence and information, it should be possible to identify the leading perpetrators of fly-grazing and take appropriate action. If the problem is acute in certain areas—looking at the charts, Wales appears to be particularly badly affected—it should be a priority for the authorities to do whatever is necessary to deal with it. The tools are there, and we need to ensure that they are enforced.

One of the problems in dealing with fly-grazing is identifying the owners. As we know, identification of the owners of the horses involved is one of the key issues in enabling the authorities and those with whom they work to tackle fly-grazing.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I will press on, otherwise I will not cover all the points.

Revised horse passport regulations have been in force since 2009. They require all owners to obtain a passport for each horse that they own and all newly identified horses to be fitted with a microchip. We and other member states are currently considering EU Commission proposals to improve and strengthen the horse passport regime in response to the horsemeat fraud incident earlier this year.

Several measures are under consideration, including stricter standards for passports and a requirement for all member states to operate a central equine database, to which several hon. Members have alluded. DEFRA officials are working closely with the equine sector council strategy steering committee on the matter. As we have heard today, however, horses associated with antisocial behaviour are frequently not identified, so although we welcome the strengthening of the horse passport regulations, we recognise that it is not a solution in itself.

I wanted to touch briefly on another point raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about the tripartite agreement between France, Ireland and the UK. The Government are committed to protecting our equine industry from the threat of disease from overseas. European statute requires that horses that move between EU member states must undergo a veterinary inspection 48 hours prior to movement, and that they must be accompanied by a passport and health certificate. Any movement must be pre-notified to the competent authorities.

However, the existing tripartite agreement applies a derogation from those rules for horses moving between the UK, France and Ireland, on the basis that the three countries share the same health status for equines, and it seems reasonable that that should continue. We have, therefore, managed to avoid imposing unnecessary costs and burdens on horse owners.

Following considerable work with the equine sector and the member states concerned, I can confirm that a new tripartite agreement has been signed, which limits the derogation from EU health controls for intra-EU trade to groups of horses with a demonstrably higher health status. That will come into effect in May 2014. Those new changes will apply only to movements between the UK and France, and Ireland and France. The situation regarding movements between Ireland and the UK remains unchanged, because we are satisfied that on disease control grounds—bearing in mind the aims of the relevant EU directive—there is no additional risk. The new agreement between the UK, France and Ireland will hugely benefit the sector.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) highlighted the importance of co-ordination. We have been particularly struck by the protocols introduced by councils in Wakefield and York, which give guidance to local practitioners about the steps they should take to deal with the problem of fly-grazing, citing all the laws at their disposal. I emphasise to local authorities that they can use existing and future antisocial behaviour legislation to tackle that problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire and others have asked whether it would be possible to provide further guidance, and we are looking at that. In the case of tackling dangerous dogs, for instance, we issued specific guidance to councils so that they understood the implications of the new measures. We are keen to learn from Wakefield and York councils about whether further work can be done in the area.

On the Welsh proposals, there are a couple of limitations. My biggest concern with what is proposed in Wales is that it introduces no new powers beyond those in the Animal Act 1971, but it shortens the time scales. There is a danger of our putting the onus on local authorities to deal with the problem, rather than on tackling irresponsible owners. We could end up imposing costs and additional burdens on local authorities—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Huw Irranca-Davies

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

A National Audit Office report today shows the response to the horsemeat scandal was hampered by confusion caused by the coalition Government splitting the Food Standards Agency’s responsibilities in 2010. It also raises concerns over the reductions in food testing, public analysts and local officers working on food law enforcement since this Government came to power. So will Ministers now accept their share of responsibility—or is this the fault of the badgers?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The Department will look at this report from the NAO and study its recommendations very carefully, but I have to say there is no evidence that the division of the FSA’s role has contributed to this, and, more importantly, we have appointed Professor Chris Elliott to look at this whole issue in great detail and his report will be key.

Common Agricultural Policy

Debate between George Eustice and Huw Irranca-Davies

Thursday 1st November 2012 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

That is right. The environmental stewardship schemes in pillar two are much more proactive about encouraging wildlife and improving biodiversity, whereas the problem with set-aside is that it becomes something that has to be done and everyone finds all sorts of ways around the rules so that, for instance, they can graze a particular type of goat on the land and get away with it. There is an issue with the bureaucratic system of set-aside.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton also alluded to the crop rotation requirement. Anyone who has been a farmer, as I once was, knows that crop rotation is a good thing. A farmer who farms without rotating their crops, particularly in the arable or vegetable sectors, will soon run into problems, such as crop disease, which causes a great deal more expense than any subsidy would have been worth. I question the value of insisting, in the latest proposals, that each farmholding must grow three crops. It proves that whoever came up with the idea is not a farmer; they are a bureaucrat. One could grow three brassicas—cabbage, oilseed rape and cauliflower—which would satisfy the three-crop rule, but the farmer would have clubroot disease in all those crops within two or three years.

I understand why some would regard the proposal to cap subsidies to individual farmholdings as superficially attractive; they think, “Why should we give a huge amount of money to very large farms?” However, no one has thought through the likely impact. Large farmholdings might break themselves into small farmholdings to get around the rules. There would be all sorts of avoidance problems, which would need a suite of anti-avoidance measures and people to ensure that farmers did not break up their holdings to circumvent the provisions. There would be major problems with that, so one must question what we are trying to achieve. If an objective of the CAP always has been and should be to promote food security and competitive farming, why would we want a policy designed to undermine the most productive and efficient farms in Europe and reward the least efficient? Although I understand why some would find the proposal superficially attractive, it is a mistake.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

What are the hon. Gentleman’s thoughts on the proposal I floated earlier? Farms receiving the very high CAP payments are on the most productive land, but they need to be more productive because we face food security challenges. The very high CAP level should recognise additional investment in innovation, targeted farming, research and so on, so that it was based not purely on production volume, but on increased production.

[George Eustice]

That is an interesting proposal, which I would like to look at more closely. I have previously argued that we could develop a system in which environmental obligations became transferable in some regards. The lettuce grower on the Cambridgeshire fens, who has a model that getting the single farm payment is irrelevant to, might forgo the payment, which could instead go to a farmer on more marginal land in, let us say, Wales—I do not want to offend anyone with a Welsh background. Such schemes could therefore receive more investment.

A problem that we all recognise in the EU negotiating process, which I alluded to in my question to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, is that rather than going into negotiations saying, “What is the best possible agricultural policy we could design?” and “What is the optimum policy we could pursue?” we are always hamstrung by voices in DEFRA and the civil service that say, “You can’t do that because Denmark won’t agree. If you advance this idea France will reject it, and we will lose our allies in Poland and eastern Europe.” Everything about agricultural policy ends up being seen through the prism of an incredibly complicated 27-way negotiation, which frankly leads to a poverty of vision of what our agricultural policy could become. We instead plod along like a blinkered horse, trying to achieve what we can. It is all about the lowest common denominator, rather than genuinely successful and thoughtful policy. Pillar two is a classic case of that.

[Mr Dai Havard in the Chair]

In the last Parliament, our Committee, before I was on it, criticised the Labour Government for arguing that we should phase out pillar one and have pillar two only, because it was not achievable and undermined our negotiating position. If we do not even articulate what we believe because we are concerned that doing so will undermine our negotiating position, there is a problem.

I would like a much looser CAP in future: a common policy about common objectives. We could set common objectives for improving animal welfare, safeguarding the environment, enhancing biodiversity and promoting food security. There could be much looser policies and arrangements centrally and much more decision making and responsibility for implementation devolved to national Governments.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

It might be, if we get to that point, but I do not want to be distracted by that now.

There is potential and it is not unrealistic, because that is the direction of the common fisheries policy. The Commission, under Commissioner Damanaki, is buying into ideas that will effectively lead to a partial repatriation —of sorts—of the management of individual waters and fisheries only to those groups of countries that share that fishing water. That is a sensible plan.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman has graciously given way. He tempted me in because I was the Minister who oversaw the instigation of that regionalisation of the common fisheries policy. It is a good approach, but it must be balanced against the imperative to achieve sustainability of fisheries in sea areas. In the same way, we are talking about the long-term sustainability of agriculture and getting more out from less in. There cannot simply be devolved management and let-loose chaos; it must be well planned and managed by individuals and organisations on the ground or on the seas.

[George Eustice]

I absolutely agree. In fisheries, the developments and techniques on maximum sustainable yield and how they are calculated and measured, with all their complexities, have come a long way. That should be the guiding philosophy of the common agricultural policy. The US has a statute that states that there cannot be overfishing beyond the maximum sustainable yield, and we could look at something like that at a European level. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am talking more about the implementation to deliver maximum sustainable yield in fisheries, how we could devolve management of that and how we could do the same for the common agricultural policy. We could set clear objectives to enhance animal welfare, biodiversity and environmental protection, but give individual countries much more scope to work out how best to achieve them.

I am interested in another area that has always struck me as a missed opportunity. The Committee took evidence on the natural environment White Paper proposals, which the Government launched soon after the election. Some of that evidence made it clear that putting a value on biodiversity and the natural environment was a powerful idea that had a great deal of potential. There were interesting proposals in the White Paper, but the big thing that held them back was the lack of funding to make them a reality and to make such a market a reality. A huge amount of money—the best part of 40% of the EU budget—is tied up in the common agricultural policy, but there is no really thoughtful, innovative policy in it. There are interesting ideas in the White Paper, but no money for them. Could we somehow marry the two and use some of that CAP money to make a reality of the natural environment White Paper?

Common Agricultural Policy

Debate between George Eustice and Huw Irranca-Davies

Thursday 8th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

As I will say later, we need common objectives, but not necessarily a common policy. We also need clear state aid rules, as we have in other sectors. In that way, we can have a proper functioning single market and protect it, even though we do not have a common uniform policy across Europe.

The most important point about the proposals on the table is that they are a backward step for the CAP. The aim was to simplify it, and simplification has been the buzz word for many years, but the proposals will make it more complicated. As the Chair of the Committee said, we are effectively seeing a return to set-aside, with suggestions that 7% of people’s land should be set aside. At a time when food security, which should be a key objective of a common agricultural policy, is a growing issue, that is a step backwards.

I also object to the cap proposed on payments to farmers. If we want to encourage farmers to become less dependent on subsidies in the long term, we need to support consolidation and more efficient farms. A cap on payments would force farmers to break up holdings into collections of smaller holdings so that they still qualify for the subsidy, but that makes no sense. If we want a more efficient agricultural industry, why penalise the larger, more efficient farms?

There are some ludicrous things in the proposals. For instance, in an attempt to achieve crop rotation, there is some suggestion that farmers grow at least three crops to qualify for a subsidy. We can tell that the proposal was written by people who do not understand farming, because insisting on growing three separate crops will not necessarily bring the benefits we seek from crop rotation. For instance, somebody might grow cabbages, cauliflowers and oilseed rape to ensure they have their three crops, but those crops all come from the same brassica family, and are all subject to similar diseases, so a farmer who grew them would soon run into serious problems on their land.

What should a new CAP look like? We should start moving towards something that is about common objectives, rather than a unified common policy. The CAP should have key objectives, such as enhancing biodiversity, improving animal welfare and delivering food security. However, we should then give national Governments much more freedom to innovate, try new policies and adopt approaches that work in their countryside, rather than trying to have a uniform approach that works from Scotland all the way down to Greece, which is clearly difficult to achieve.

Allied to that, we would have a clear set of state aid rules that were specific to the agricultural sector, just as we have clear state aid rules for the single market in every other sector. Such rules would prevent, say, France from subsidising its farmers more than the UK Government and thereby putting our farmers at a disadvantage. Provided that we got those rules right, we could protect a single market in agricultural produce.

The key benefit of such an approach is that it would be more fluid. We would be able to hold the UK Government to account and say, “Why aren’t you trying this great new idea that is working so well in France? Surely, it would work here.” Instead, the best we can do now is to say, “How many meetings have you had with Poland to try to outmanoeuvre France?” That is not a good way forward.

When we make such proposals, people immediately think, “That’s a good idea, but it’s not realistic in the current time horizon.” I have heard that, too. Indeed, when I put these ideas to the Secretary of State last week, the answer was that they were ahead of their time, which is a flattering way of saying, “No, we’re not going to do that.”

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has great experience in the European Parliament, and I want to put one point to him. What he describes is already the direction of travel in the common fisheries policy, where there is a strong push from the UK Government, as there was under the previous Government, to move towards a more dynamic, regional-management approach, with much greater subsidiarity and local decision making, albeit in an overall framework. The hon. Gentleman may be ahead of his time on this issue, but practice in other areas is catching up with him.

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman is right, except that I was not actually in the European Parliament. I was a candidate in the 1999 European elections, although unsuccessfully—and for a different party, I should add. However, I have followed these issues closely, and the hon. Gentleman is right. The EFRA Committee has, separately, been looking at the common fisheries policy, and there are proposals on the table not only to have a common framework and common objectives, but to give much more devolved power to groups of national Governments so that they can manage their own waters. It remains to be seen whether we get those reforms through, but the Government have been quite successful in getting the Commission to adopt them. That also shows the difference a different Commissioner can make. In Commissioner Damanaki, we have someone who is much more open to such proposals in relation to the common fisheries policy.

I want to question the idea that it is impossible to do what I am talking about. Alongside taking evidence on the CAP, the Committee has been looking at the natural environment White Paper. The striking thing about the CAP is that we hear people say, “We want to green pillar one in a flexible way. All this money is going into it; we need to get some public good out of it and green it.” However, they do not really know where to start, and the current proposals have run into a bit of a muddle.

On the other hand, we have the natural environment White Paper, which everybody says is very coherent and really well thought through, as well as having lots of interesting proposals about valuing natural capital and creating markets in which we can mitigate and offset environmental damage in some areas through improvements in others. The problem is that there is not enough money to bring life to those ideas.

Is it really beyond the wit of man to connect the two? Let us take some of the principles from the natural environment White Paper, link them to the funding in pillar one and see if we can make that work. What would that look like? It would mean replacing the single farm payment with some kind of market in transferable environmental obligations. A farmer on the fens who grows lettuces, and who does not really require the single farm payment for his business model to work, might say, “I don’t want to set aside 7% of my land. I don’t want to get into that. I just grow lettuces, and that’s my business model.”

In contrast, a farmer on marginal land in Wales, for instance—I have nothing against Wales, and there are patches of good soil there—may decide to opt into environmental obligations on a larger scale. That can bring benefit, with the establishment of wildlife corridors, and with critical mass in some areas for improved wildlife habitats. That might actually work, rather than a piecemeal approach with 7% of every farm’s land set aside.

Such a transferable obligations system could also be extended to issues such as animal welfare. For instance, in the case of livestock farmers who pursue less intensive systems that are better for animal welfare, rather than having to fight in the market for recognition for their extra work to improve animal welfare, they could be given that recognition by the Government; we could make them eligible for payments for which those who pursue intensive systems would not be eligible. There are lots of interesting things that could be done with such a system of transferable obligations.

As for pillar two, the Select Committee Chair mentioned the problem of its needing to be co-financed; sometimes the Government have been reluctant to buy into those things. To my mind, the answer is perhaps to bring back even greater control of pillar two, so that it does not become co-financed, but we do not send the money to the EU in the first place, and then have it come back with strings attached: in fact, we try to finance that as an agricultural fund that focuses on several key areas. Developing farm competitiveness is an important one that we should try for.

I also agree with the point that was made earlier about encouraging new entrants into farming. There was an interesting project, piloted in Cornwall, called the Fresh Start project, which aimed to encourage new entrants to the industry. The average age of farmers is incredibly high. I think that two thirds of farmers in Europe are over 60, which is a shocking figure. We need new entrants. The Welsh Government have also started interesting schemes to encourage new entrants to the industry. Pillar two could focus on improving competitiveness and encouraging new entrants, as well as keeping going with schemes such as the entry level and higher level stewardship schemes.

Those two policies, to return to what I said at the outset, prove the point that if a national Government are given the scope, freedom and head room to think through what a good policy looks like, they can get it right. The ELS and HLS are good examples of that. Britain is a trailblazer in that respect, because we have been able just to do the right thing. We have not had to go behind closed doors and haggle about it with 27 other countries. If we could do that in more areas of agricultural policy, our farming would be stronger.